Currently if number of players are uneven (odd), e.g. 3v4, server balances by giving two commanders to top player on team with less players, and counting it as 2x elo. However, newest zero-k changed com income to shared, which does not take into account this double commander. In other words, if I play odd team, i get same income, but balance counts me as twice = game over. Example: I got 2300 elo, it counts me as 4600 elo, however i have same income as normal, which means I cannot do anything more. Yes, second factory stays, but double income is what matters a lot, especially in small teams.
+11 / -0
|
Wait, are you sure the server counts your ELO double if you're getting 2X comms?
+1 / -0
|
I'm pretty sure it doesn't do that but the problem still exists.
+2 / -0
|
Yes, I am sure. That's the way it works for years, as far as I remember. Some players do not like to play 2 coms, it's very challenging to play 2x stronger, 2x more work.
+0 / -0
|
*actual ratio is not the point, point is it's broken now
+2 / -0
|
Its 2x more work but you only get +4m/s than you would normally. You still get 1 share of team metal instead of 2.
+0 / -0
|
disallow odd teams (unless game is above small-teams threshold)
+1 / -0
|
it still sucks in big teams, with normal player distribution there are only a couple of players that can be exspected to do reasonably well so the 1 guy who counts twice or 1,5 times needs that extra metal. (especially if you have that much more elo than the average that most the good players are on the other team) private hosts seem to already forbid uneven teams and its super annoying.
+0 / -0
|
private commander income would fix this..!
+4 / -0
|
Proper matchmaking would fix this..!
+1 / -0
|
I don't think that an team income imbalance of 4 m/e is a huge problem in and of itself, just a definite problem. IS the objection here about the principle of even resources and the sensation of absolute fairness ZK is known for?
+0 / -0
|
The objection here is that after looking a gift comm in the mouth, it is revealed to only have 20 BP, but no income. So these poor people are getting totally screwed because using spare buildpower is absolutely mandatory.
+0 / -0
|
The balancer doesn't coount the two com player as having double elo, but as two players with the same elo. This was a better approximation before, as you would have more income (close to the income of two players). Now I guess it would be better to just average the elo of the team.
+1 / -0
|
quote:
I don't think that an team income imbalance of 4 m/e is a huge problem in and of itself, just a definite problem. |
There is no such imbalance. The second commander still generates the income. Each player on the smaller team gets 4/N metal more on the outset compared to the players in the larger team, where N is equal to the number of players in the smaller team. Team incomes are equal. I believe the OP's complaint is that the bonus income is no longer 100% beholden do their strongest player, under assumption that this mode of uneven team compensation was anyhow supported by math, rather than just being a even teams income thing. This then is used to argue that the change breaks the balancer's math.
+0 / -0
|
I always wondered if there was a dip in elo trajectory at the point where you start being consistently the highest player on your team. You are suddenly required to learn how to use two coms and two facs effectively, and many players begrudge this challenge. There may even be a leap forward in elo once players have the insight into how to use those extra resources to break the assumptions their opponents are making: such as how many planes your team can field out of one factory at the start. Shaman always elicited groans from me when I saw he had two coms because he would smash our air player out of contention with 2xplanes and then do a big fluid switch to glaives or some nonsense. Brutal. Effective team income is unlikely to be equal. Having two identical coms land in the same spot hurts expansion options. Many times you won't be able to secure as many mex clusters at the start. This is how it was before, but the power concentration in your strongest player made up for it more than it will now.
+4 / -0
|
a gift with strings attached - the strings being that you have to play for 2. if 2 means 2 of your own elo, you definitly need the extra income. i dont know what quote:
The balancer doesn't coount the two com player as having double elo, but as two players with the same elo. |
means, two players with the "same" elo? how much elo is same exactly? if my second com gets counted as another    Klon, but provides no substantial income for me, the "gift" is rather costly and not at all that useful, and a major burden on the team. its a white elephant. (speaking of myself in the third person for demonstrational purposes :P)
+4 / -0
|
I always kind of wondered why springie doesn't just say 'no' when you try to !start with uneven player numbers
+0 / -0
|
It doesn't say "no", because some players here actually play for fun, and don't want to wait long time for "perfect" balance. Actually what makes sense for balance, if com income must be shared, to balance by elo sum, e.g. sum(4 players team elo) == sum(5 players team elo).
+1 / -0
|
quote:
balance by elo sum, e.g. sum(4 players team elo) == sum(5 players team elo). |
So (4 x 2000 elo) vs (5 x 1600 elo) Sounds balanced. Oh wait...
+2 / -0
|
quote:
a gift with strings attached - the strings being that you have to play for 2. if 2 means 2 of your own elo, you definitly need the extra income. |
You don't have to play for 2. Balancer treats you exactly the same as everyone else, it does not count you twice and does not treat you as having 5000 Elo.
+1 / -0
|
